At 7/27/2014 7:53:27 PM, Installgentoo wrote:The atheist delusion is adopting the philosophical stance of evidentialism for everything except not believing in the existence of God. Do atheists care about this massive hole in their reasoning?

Do you need evidence to not believe in something? If that is indeed your position, it is an absurd one. Do you believe in Russell's teapot, fairies, leprechauns, or bigfoot? There is no evidence for disbelief in them (because there is no evidnce for them), but I'll bet you don't think they exist.

This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten

At 7/27/2014 7:53:27 PM, Installgentoo wrote:The atheist delusion is adopting the philosophical stance of evidentialism for everything except not believing in the existence of God. Do atheists care about this massive hole in their reasoning?

Where's your evidence for not believing that Bugs Bunny is in my closet?

At 7/27/2014 7:53:27 PM, Installgentoo wrote:The atheist delusion is adopting the philosophical stance of evidentialism for everything except not believing in the existence of God. Do atheists care about this massive hole in their reasoning?

Do you need evidence to not believe in something? If that is indeed your position, it is an absurd one. Do you believe in Russell's teapot, fairies, leprechauns, or bigfoot?

I would believe in them if there were evidence the things written about them were true. Fortunately the writings about them are false, but atheists never demonstrate theological writings to be false.

At 7/27/2014 7:53:27 PM, Installgentoo wrote:The atheist delusion is adopting the philosophical stance of evidentialism for everything except not believing in the existence of God. Do atheists care about this massive hole in their reasoning?

Do you need evidence to not believe in something? If that is indeed your position, it is an absurd one. Do you believe in Russell's teapot, fairies, leprechauns, or bigfoot?

I would believe in them if there were evidence the things written about them were true. Fortunately the writings about them are false, but atheists never demonstrate theological writings to be false.

Demonstrate that all writings on bigfoot are false, please. As well as all writings on fairies and leprechauns. If you can do that, I'll be impressed, and this discussion can continue. If you cannot do that, then there is clearly a hole in your reasoning--one that you've papered over with an assertion that you don't know to be true.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 7/27/2014 7:53:27 PM, Installgentoo wrote:The atheist delusion is adopting the philosophical stance of evidentialism for everything except not believing in the existence of God. Do atheists care about this massive hole in their reasoning?

I've been sitting here for two, maybe three minutes thinking about, among other important things like what I'm going to make for dinner tomorrow night and whether I should get a dog or buy a bookshelf, what you intended to accomplish in making this post. Surely, these are the big questions of the hour... But they are far easier to answer than the slightly less significant question of why you made this OP.

That is not even to say that, necessarily, I take philosophical issue with the broader point you're trying to advance -though the only reason I know the point is because it's in some regards similar to one I and others have made at great length already. It surely couldn't have been your objective to win people over to your way of thinking, for several reasons:

First, there seems to be an air of pretense and scorn to those with whom you disagree. Indeed it's a significant epistemological issue (how can we know if God is real or not? Could there be any more imminent issue for humankind to resolve?). But, if you were trying to persuade others who may share a view in conflict with yours, you wouldn't have begun by implicitly ostracizing them.

Second, you're not really making a coherent argument. You're attacking what would appear to be a deficiency in a view that disagrees with yours, but your implied premise leaves open both the possibility for agnosticism and actual "belief" in a supernatural being or beings.

Third, though the literal text on this webpage would suggest that you're positing an invitation to dialogue, you're to really. What you're doing is laying the foundation to attack other people for being "stupid" (where the standard for stupidity is disagreement with your implied epistemological theory), not for actually having a meaningful discussion about this subject of the intellectual bulwark behind it.

At 7/27/2014 7:53:27 PM, Installgentoo wrote:The atheist delusion is adopting the philosophical stance of evidentialism for everything except not believing in the existence of God. Do atheists care about this massive hole in their reasoning?

Do you need evidence to not believe in something? If that is indeed your position, it is an absurd one. Do you believe in Russell's teapot, fairies, leprechauns, or bigfoot?

I would believe in them if there were evidence the things written about them were true. Fortunately the writings about them are false, but atheists never demonstrate theological writings to be false.

Demonstrate that all writings on bigfoot are false, please.

Well the ones where you have sighting reports are mostly not credible because people were drunk when they wrote them and they wrote this down in their writing.

They have been debunked in numerous places though, so why don't you google it?

At 7/27/2014 7:53:27 PM, Installgentoo wrote:The atheist delusion is adopting the philosophical stance of evidentialism for everything except not believing in the existence of God. Do atheists care about this massive hole in their reasoning?

Do you need evidence to not believe in something? If that is indeed your position, it is an absurd one. Do you believe in Russell's teapot, fairies, leprechauns, or bigfoot?

I would believe in them if there were evidence the things written about them were true. Fortunately the writings about them are false, but atheists never demonstrate theological writings to be false.

At 7/27/2014 7:53:27 PM, Installgentoo wrote:The atheist delusion is adopting the philosophical stance of evidentialism for everything except not believing in the existence of God. Do atheists care about this massive hole in their reasoning?

Do you need evidence to not believe in something? If that is indeed your position, it is an absurd one. Do you believe in Russell's teapot, fairies, leprechauns, or bigfoot?

I would believe in them if there were evidence the things written about them were true. Fortunately the writings about them are false, but atheists never demonstrate theological writings to be false.

What writings are there about Russell's teapot that are false?

Bertrand Russells own writing about the teapot shows it's false, because he says it's just a metaphor.

At 7/27/2014 7:53:27 PM, Installgentoo wrote:The atheist delusion is adopting the philosophical stance of evidentialism for everything except not believing in the existence of God. Do atheists care about this massive hole in their reasoning?

Do you need evidence to not believe in something? If that is indeed your position, it is an absurd one. Do you believe in Russell's teapot, fairies, leprechauns, or bigfoot?

I would believe in them if there were evidence the things written about them were true. Fortunately the writings about them are false, but atheists never demonstrate theological writings to be false.

Demonstrate that all writings on bigfoot are false, please.

It is possible, though it would require a great deal of time and effort, to search all the terrestrial world exhaustively. If we found no "big foot," then we could conclude that "big foot" (which is decidedly a concept of this world) is a fantasy.

As well as all writings on fairies and leprechauns.

The same applies. See above.

If you can do that, I'll be impressed...

You shouldn't be, really. It doesn't really take a great deal of intellectual effort.

At 7/27/2014 7:53:27 PM, Installgentoo wrote:The atheist delusion is adopting the philosophical stance of evidentialism for everything except not believing in the existence of God. Do atheists care about this massive hole in their reasoning?

Do you need evidence to not believe in something? If that is indeed your position, it is an absurd one. Do you believe in Russell's teapot, fairies, leprechauns, or bigfoot?

I would believe in them if there were evidence the things written about them were true. Fortunately the writings about them are false, but atheists never demonstrate theological writings to be false.

Demonstrate that all writings on bigfoot are false, please.

Well the ones where you have sighting reports are mostly not credible because people were drunk when they wrote them and they wrote this down in their writing.

That doesn't prove it false.

They have been debunked in numerous places though, so why don't you google it?

I could. But you made the claim. If you cannot back it up, how can I possibly see you as honest?

You didn't even claim they were "likely" false. You claimed they WERE false. Again, I question the legitimacy of such a statement.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 7/27/2014 7:53:27 PM, Installgentoo wrote:The atheist delusion is adopting the philosophical stance of evidentialism for everything except not believing in the existence of God. Do atheists care about this massive hole in their reasoning?

Do you need evidence to not believe in something? If that is indeed your position, it is an absurd one. Do you believe in Russell's teapot, fairies, leprechauns, or bigfoot?

I would believe in them if there were evidence the things written about them were true. Fortunately the writings about them are false, but atheists never demonstrate theological writings to be false.

What writings are there about Russell's teapot that are false?

Bertrand Russells own writing about the teapot shows it's false, because he says it's just a metaphor.

At 7/27/2014 7:53:27 PM, Installgentoo wrote:The atheist delusion is adopting the philosophical stance of evidentialism for everything except not believing in the existence of God. Do atheists care about this massive hole in their reasoning?

Do you need evidence to not believe in something? If that is indeed your position, it is an absurd one. Do you believe in Russell's teapot, fairies, leprechauns, or bigfoot?

I would believe in them if there were evidence the things written about them were true. Fortunately the writings about them are false, but atheists never demonstrate theological writings to be false.

Demonstrate that all writings on bigfoot are false, please.

It is possible, though it would require a great deal of time and effort, to search all the terrestrial world exhaustively. If we found no "big foot," then we could conclude that "big foot" (which is decidedly a concept of this world) is a fantasy.

Is that something that you think installgentoo can do? Because he made the bold claim.

As well as all writings on fairies and leprechauns.

The same applies. See above.

Actually, in the case of fairies and leprechauns we have claims of "supernatural" abilities, so i do not think that the same would apply.

If you can do that, I'll be impressed...

You shouldn't be, really. It doesn't really take a great deal of intellectual effort.

But you did not demonstrate it. The point was not that it COULD in theory be done, but that installgentoo, as is his wont, has yet again made a sweeping claim. I suspect that, yet again, he lacks the ability to rationally support the claim. But I welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 7/27/2014 7:53:27 PM, Installgentoo wrote:The atheist delusion is adopting the philosophical stance of evidentialism for everything except not believing in the existence of God. Do atheists care about this massive hole in their reasoning?

Do you need evidence to not believe in something? If that is indeed your position, it is an absurd one. Do you believe in Russell's teapot, fairies, leprechauns, or bigfoot?

I would believe in them if there were evidence the things written about them were true. Fortunately the writings about them are false, but atheists never demonstrate theological writings to be false.

Demonstrate that all writings on bigfoot are false, please.

It is possible, though it would require a great deal of time and effort, to search all the terrestrial world exhaustively. If we found no "big foot," then we could conclude that "big foot" (which is decidedly a concept of this world) is a fantasy.

Is that something that you think installgentoo can do? Because he made the bold claim.

Whether he could do it, as an individual, is inconsequential to the more general point that Bigfoot's existence is falsifiable, whereas God's existence is not, therefore your rejoinder doesn't really undercut what he said.

As well as all writings on fairies and leprechauns.

The same applies. See above.

Actually, in the case of fairies and leprechauns we have claims of "supernatural" abilities, so i do not think that the same would apply.

Perhaps I need to touch up on my general familiarity with fairy tales, and I make room for that possibility, but I was always of the impression that Leprechauns tended to have pots of gold at the end of rainbows. If not, Lucky Charms cereal may have a law suit on their hands... lol

If you can do that, I'll be impressed...

You shouldn't be, really. It doesn't really take a great deal of intellectual effort.

But you did not demonstrate it.

I don't have to demonstrate that "X is not the case" for "X" to be a falsifiable claim. Even still, that wasn't the point. The more general point was that your response didn't actually undermine what he said.

The point was not that it COULD in theory be done, but that installgentoo, as is his wont, has yet again made a sweeping claim. I suspect that, yet again, he lacks the ability to rationally support the claim. But I welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong.

Oh, the guy's a baboon and I doubt he has the background (much less the capacity) to coherently lay the foundation that's required to explain the significance of his OP. I will refer you to the response I made to the OP; a post above.

At 7/27/2014 7:53:27 PM, Installgentoo wrote:The atheist delusion is adopting the philosophical stance of evidentialism for everything except not believing in the existence of God. Do atheists care about this massive hole in their reasoning?

Do you need evidence to not believe in something? If that is indeed your position, it is an absurd one. Do you believe in Russell's teapot, fairies, leprechauns, or bigfoot?

I would believe in them if there were evidence the things written about them were true. Fortunately the writings about them are false, but atheists never demonstrate theological writings to be false.

Demonstrate that all writings on bigfoot are false, please.

It is possible, though it would require a great deal of time and effort, to search all the terrestrial world exhaustively. If we found no "big foot," then we could conclude that "big foot" (which is decidedly a concept of this world) is a fantasy.

Is that something that you think installgentoo can do? Because he made the bold claim.

Whether he could do it, as an individual, is inconsequential to the more general point that Bigfoot's existence is falsifiable, whereas God's existence is not, therefore your rejoinder doesn't really undercut what he said.

I understand the point YOU'RE making, but it's divorced from the point HE was making, to which I was responding.

As well as all writings on fairies and leprechauns.

The same applies. See above.

Actually, in the case of fairies and leprechauns we have claims of "supernatural" abilities, so i do not think that the same would apply.

Perhaps I need to touch up on my general familiarity with fairy tales, and I make room for that possibility, but I was always of the impression that Leprechauns tended to have pots of gold at the end of rainbows. If not, Lucky Charms cereal may have a law suit on their hands... lol

Well, in Irish folklore I believe they were Tuatha De Danann just like fairies. They were definitely supernatural, though. Haven't you ever seen the documentary "Leprechaun"? Or its better received sequel scientific film, "Leprechaun 2"?

If you can do that, I'll be impressed...

You shouldn't be, really. It doesn't really take a great deal of intellectual effort.

But you did not demonstrate it.

I don't have to demonstrate that "X is not the case" for "X" to be a falsifiable claim. Even still, that wasn't the point. The more general point was that your response didn't actually undermine what he said.

It did, indeed, though. Because what he said were that the writings were false. This is a claim that he appears to have no grounds to say.

Now, the broader point that YOU bring up (the unfalsifiability of the god claim) is actually a different matter entirely--one I'd love to engage with at some point, though I recognize you have traditionally shown a good deal of hesitation to do so, as is of course your prerogative.

The point was not that it COULD in theory be done, but that installgentoo, as is his wont, has yet again made a sweeping claim. I suspect that, yet again, he lacks the ability to rationally support the claim. But I welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong.

Oh, the guy's a baboon and I doubt he has the background (much less the capacity) to coherently lay the foundation that's required to explain the significance of his OP. I will refer you to the response I made to the OP; a post above.

Indeed, 'tis a fine response. And let me say that I vote for the dog over the bookshelf.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 7/27/2014 7:53:27 PM, Installgentoo wrote:The atheist delusion is adopting the philosophical stance of evidentialism for everything except not believing in the existence of God. Do atheists care about this massive hole in their reasoning?

Where's your evidence for not believing that Bugs Bunny is in my closet?

Easy. Fiction means not real. Bugs bunny is by definition a fictional character, thus, he doesn't exist. Sorry. I knew you were joking, just had to say that.

At 7/27/2014 7:53:27 PM, Installgentoo wrote:The atheist delusion is adopting the philosophical stance of evidentialism for everything except not believing in the existence of God. Do atheists care about this massive hole in their reasoning?

Do you need evidence to not believe in something? If that is indeed your position, it is an absurd one. Do you believe in Russell's teapot, fairies, leprechauns, or bigfoot?

I would believe in them if there were evidence the things written about them were true. Fortunately the writings about them are false, but atheists never demonstrate theological writings to be false.

Demonstrate that all writings on bigfoot are false, please.

It is possible, though it would require a great deal of time and effort, to search all the terrestrial world exhaustively. If we found no "big foot," then we could conclude that "big foot" (which is decidedly a concept of this world) is a fantasy.

Is that something that you think installgentoo can do? Because he made the bold claim.

Whether he could do it, as an individual, is inconsequential to the more general point that Bigfoot's existence is falsifiable, whereas God's existence is not, therefore your rejoinder doesn't really undercut what he said.

I understand the point YOU'RE making, but it's divorced from the point HE was making, to which I was responding.

lol

As well as all writings on fairies and leprechauns.

The same applies. See above.

Actually, in the case of fairies and leprechauns we have claims of "supernatural" abilities, so i do not think that the same would apply.

Perhaps I need to touch up on my general familiarity with fairy tales, and I make room for that possibility, but I was always of the impression that Leprechauns tended to have pots of gold at the end of rainbows. If not, Lucky Charms cereal may have a law suit on their hands... lol

Well, in Irish folklore I believe they were Tuatha De Danann just like fairies. They were definitely supernatural, though. Haven't you ever seen the documentary "Leprechaun"? Or its better received sequel scientific film, "Leprechaun 2"?

If I'm watching documentaries, it's usually about war, ancient Greece, Egypt or Rome, or animals. A documentary on Leprechaun's just doesn't tickle my fancy haha

If you can do that, I'll be impressed...

You shouldn't be, really. It doesn't really take a great deal of intellectual effort.

But you did not demonstrate it.

I don't have to demonstrate that "X is not the case" for "X" to be a falsifiable claim. Even still, that wasn't the point. The more general point was that your response didn't actually undermine what he said.

It did, indeed, though. Because what he said were that the writings were false. This is a claim that he appears to have no grounds to say.

Now, the broader point that YOU bring up (the unfalsifiability of the god claim) is actually a different matter entirely--one I'd love to engage with at some point, though I recognize you have traditionally shown a good deal of hesitation to do so, as is of course your prerogative.

Actually, I just get tired of rehashing stuff. We've literally devoted pages upon pages of discussion to that subject.

The point was not that it COULD in theory be done, but that installgentoo, as is his wont, has yet again made a sweeping claim. I suspect that, yet again, he lacks the ability to rationally support the claim. But I welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong.

Oh, the guy's a baboon and I doubt he has the background (much less the capacity) to coherently lay the foundation that's required to explain the significance of his OP. I will refer you to the response I made to the OP; a post above.

Indeed, 'tis a fine response. And let me say that I vote for the dog over the bookshelf.

Fortunately, I could have both. I really want a dog, though.

And I'll just make one final remark on the OP in passing: I have all sorts of nasty, mean, unkind, psychologically harmful and otherwise generally horrible things to say about him.

But I won't, because we all know what they are, what could be said and that as a general rule there is already consensus on that subject.

At 7/27/2014 7:53:27 PM, Installgentoo wrote:The atheist delusion is adopting the philosophical stance of evidentialism for everything except not believing in the existence of God. Do atheists care about this massive hole in their reasoning?

Do you need evidence to not believe in something? If that is indeed your position, it is an absurd one. Do you believe in Russell's teapot, fairies, leprechauns, or bigfoot?

I would believe in them if there were evidence the things written about them were true. Fortunately the writings about them are false, but atheists never demonstrate theological writings to be false.

When you say "theological writings" are you referring to the Bible, and are you suggesting it is inerrant? (because it's not). Also, theists make a positive claim and fail to provide evidence to support their conclusion. Atheists have no obligation to disprove your claim if you cannot prove it.

This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten

If I'm watching documentaries, it's usually about war, ancient Greece, Egypt or Rome, or animals. A documentary on Leprechaun's just doesn't tickle my fancy haha

I can't tell if you were being sarcastic or not...but I was kidding. Leprechaun is a series of "horror movies". Leprechaun 6 was "Leprechaun: Back 2 tha Hood".

If you can do that, I'll be impressed...

You shouldn't be, really. It doesn't really take a great deal of intellectual effort.

But you did not demonstrate it.

I don't have to demonstrate that "X is not the case" for "X" to be a falsifiable claim. Even still, that wasn't the point. The more general point was that your response didn't actually undermine what he said.

It did, indeed, though. Because what he said were that the writings were false. This is a claim that he appears to have no grounds to say.

Now, the broader point that YOU bring up (the unfalsifiability of the god claim) is actually a different matter entirely--one I'd love to engage with at some point, though I recognize you have traditionally shown a good deal of hesitation to do so, as is of course your prerogative.

Actually, I just get tired of rehashing stuff. We've literally devoted pages upon pages of discussion to that subject.

The point was not that it COULD in theory be done, but that installgentoo, as is his wont, has yet again made a sweeping claim. I suspect that, yet again, he lacks the ability to rationally support the claim. But I welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong.

Oh, the guy's a baboon and I doubt he has the background (much less the capacity) to coherently lay the foundation that's required to explain the significance of his OP. I will refer you to the response I made to the OP; a post above.

Indeed, 'tis a fine response. And let me say that I vote for the dog over the bookshelf.

Fortunately, I could have both. I really want a dog, though.

You'll have to tell us what kind you get.

And I'll just make one final remark on the OP in passing: I have all sorts of nasty, mean, unkind, psychologically harmful and otherwise generally horrible things to say about him.

But I won't, because we all know what they are, what could be said and that as a general rule there is already consensus on that subject.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

If I'm watching documentaries, it's usually about war, ancient Greece, Egypt or Rome, or animals. A documentary on Leprechaun's just doesn't tickle my fancy haha

I can't tell if you were being sarcastic or not...but I was kidding. Leprechaun is a series of "horror movies". Leprechaun 6 was "Leprechaun: Back 2 tha Hood".

I am so culturally illiterate haha

If you can do that, I'll be impressed...

You shouldn't be, really. It doesn't really take a great deal of intellectual effort.

But you did not demonstrate it.

I don't have to demonstrate that "X is not the case" for "X" to be a falsifiable claim. Even still, that wasn't the point. The more general point was that your response didn't actually undermine what he said.

It did, indeed, though. Because what he said were that the writings were false. This is a claim that he appears to have no grounds to say.

Now, the broader point that YOU bring up (the unfalsifiability of the god claim) is actually a different matter entirely--one I'd love to engage with at some point, though I recognize you have traditionally shown a good deal of hesitation to do so, as is of course your prerogative.

Actually, I just get tired of rehashing stuff. We've literally devoted pages upon pages of discussion to that subject.

The point was not that it COULD in theory be done, but that installgentoo, as is his wont, has yet again made a sweeping claim. I suspect that, yet again, he lacks the ability to rationally support the claim. But I welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong.

Oh, the guy's a baboon and I doubt he has the background (much less the capacity) to coherently lay the foundation that's required to explain the significance of his OP. I will refer you to the response I made to the OP; a post above.

Indeed, 'tis a fine response. And let me say that I vote for the dog over the bookshelf.

Fortunately, I could have both. I really want a dog, though.

You'll have to tell us what kind you get.

I really can't get a dog, though. My place is tiny, and I don't have a way to take it out in the daytime. I really wish I could have one, though.

And I'll just make one final remark on the OP in passing: I have all sorts of nasty, mean, unkind, psychologically harmful and otherwise generally horrible things to say about him.

But I won't, because we all know what they are, what could be said and that as a general rule there is already consensus on that subject.

At 7/27/2014 7:53:27 PM, Installgentoo wrote:The atheist delusion is adopting the philosophical stance of evidentialism for everything except not believing in the existence of God. Do atheists care about this massive hole in their reasoning?

No idea what you're talking about. Who said we don't have evidence god doesn't exist?